The arrogance of the usually qualified expressed after we missed one. Does not compute. It is an interesting point that MLS is not necessarily a US resource alone, and we do in fact give several opposing teams' players a club home, a few each from CR, Honduras, and Panama. But then by making that argument you imply the same utility to others you deny it gives us. I often feel this is the rhetorical game that gets played but rarely do I see someone openly make it in one nice neat post that makes my point. As I said about 2018, there is an argument MLS increasingly formats its roster and cap rules in a way less favorable to supporting the US teams. It is harder for senior players to play and for U20 types to dress for a first team. If you wanted to make an interesting argument -- albeit one undermining to your utility denial -- a team like the Dynamo is more useful to Honduras than the USA. We start as many as 3 Hondurans and have given others a start or a resting place. That suggests it is in fact helpful to them. The counter arguments are essentially snobbery. We are too good for Concacaf. (Except what just happened? That looked like a team that split the series with TnT and got a point from Mexico and CR total.) Our players would be better off abroad. (Except they have to want us first.) There is nothing tangible to prove these up, and worse, on the first, our recent qualifying miss should in a rational country have washed this sort of "can we move to CONMEBOL because all these teams suck" theories away.
My theory is that MLS initially helped USMNT and USYNT by giving plentiful room for players to see a field and somewhere between bank and a liveable salary to continue playing, for the ones not grabbed up by Europe (most). This was a step up from amateurism, semi-pro or minor league money, or a couple people in Europe or Mexico. At that point the cap was fairly hard, payrolls limited, international slots few, and limited salary exceptions/grandfathering of players who were generally Americans like Landon. The pivot point was the Beckham exception at which point we began increasing foreign player slots and slots excepted from the caps. Most teams now start majority foreign lineups and the big money effort is directed more beyond our borders than towards a Pulisic type player. There are some exceptions like TFC. If you go down roster lists looking for USMNT players some teams literally have nothing to offer, and as a general rule most teams' lineups are minority eligible for US play. You literally rule out most of a MLS lineup from USMNT before you begin watching tape scouting for them. The rules also squeeze out the room in which a player like Carleton or even Alvarez can turn out. U20s like Landon or Beasley now might or might not dress and might be sent to the second team in USL. MLS for those players becomes no better than signing abroad. Another aspect of professionalization is more players sign younger which puts more of development in club hands and removes colleges and ends Bradenton where young players are the focus rather than the afterthought. MLS continues to help the team at a baseline level by keeping American soccer players paid and in the sport. it provides a decent level of play and coaching. It is laughable to depend on Germany and England or whatever people think will do it for us. We are there only when they want us to be. The numbers on USMNT per other countries are lower than MLS. The number of players they can employ is even more severely limited than how bad I think MLS is narrowing for the domestic player. You think fitting on half a MLS lineup is hard? Try getting a UK work permit (which almost assumes you are already on a NT). Try getting a German team to be interested. The question is whether the process as being refashioned is in our benefit, I agree with the critics of MLS but for the opposite reasons the snobs usually have. The snobs say raise the salaries, open the rosters. Not even the UK and Germany do that. They aren't that dumb about protecting their players. And if you do it we will get even worse. Unlike the UK, our smaller teams can afford foreign talent, and you would literally see top to bottom teams making themselves the UN. Senior players would be lucky to start and U20s would begin struggling for a place to get a career going anywhere. The best would be in demand. But the sort of late bloomer that also helps USMNT would have no outlet. Broken record but the pro American solution is drop back down to 3-5 foreign players per MLS team. The latter is the USOC rule. The value of MLS would divert back to the US as opposed to being sort of a regional training ground.
I never said we are "Too good for CONCACAF" but rather I intended to say that, because of the MLS and other cultural problems like the broken college system and the overall lack of decent referees, we are just good enough the compete in CONCACAF. We should only be pressed by Mexico but we consistently play as bad as our opposition. The MLS helps other CONCACAF teams because it is better than their domestic leagues but it hurts the US because the US needs to progress to the next level and we never will unless the MLS actually becomes more than it is. The play is too slow and the defense is allowed to mug players instead of actually playing defense and overall the development system is so political it is nearly a joke. No really good player playing in their prime or even near it would want to choose to play MLS bash ball unless that was all they could get or they are looking for retirement. I actually believe we would field a better and mre successful team if we: a. Had a coach that understood the you select players first and then design a system/rotation that allows them to play their best. Instead of like moost US coaches have done. Devise a system and then try to find players to fit that system or try to get players playing out of style/position to try to make that system work. b. Had a coach that understood that at the national team level you do not coach, you manage. c. Developed as league system where skill was rewarded over thuggery. d. Abandon or really improve the four year (7 if you include high school) quagmire where players really do not progress much if at all. e. Change the youth system where it keeps players interested and playing at all the skill levels because a player can look real bad one year and the next blossom in a top prospect and the other way around. There are several other changes we need to make but I would bet that those in power will prevent most of them and geld those that they do let through so the US will continue to mostly be second or third best if a fourth rate conference. I am now 71+ years old and when I was 30 I had some hopes that by this time we could contend at the World Cup. However my hopes have been dashed and now I just hope we qualify for the WCs remaining before I move on the God's (I hope to avoid the other place) Universe Cup. I will happily play where I belong, probably in God's 5th or 6th division.
Meh. Look at the names of the players you are citing. I could do a similar list of Californian names from the same era who composed the other big chunk and they can't be explained by NASL. Which puts in question whether any can be. Let's be real, initially there were three soccer hotbeds, St. Louis, ACC/NY/NJ, and California. That predates NASL. It has to do with the migrant groups coming over already passionate. That continued after NASL. Having MLS helped more broadly expand the sport here and give the rest of the country a place to play. It kept people in the sport who before would have retired or moved to coaching. It provided a place after college for young players to grow. It created a place where would be NT players would compete for the NT coach's eye. Maybe some D2 player from Chico State scores 25 MLS goals and has to be taken seriously. When before our only option is some guy on the bench in Germany who has a passport to play there sticks with the sport and is mixed with minor leaguers and college kids. And that D2 player is either minor league or retired and coaching. For that matter, most of these players became professional after NASL died. They stepped into the emptiness left by NASL. Some had good careers abroad -- the lotto option at the time -- but several of those names got career stability when MLS arrived. Meola, for example, bounced around pre MLS. MLS was his foothold, A lot of these arguments I think if we got actual US players and coaches in this talk would be laughed off the stage. You're really trying to say Meola or the Bradleys would think US soccer was more about NASL than MLS? I'm sure many of them would say I went abroad because I had no choice, or in Bob Bradley's case, he graduated into a domestic soccer abyss, and next thing you know he's coaching. He and his kid then built their lives here. C'mon, really. I do think that fast forwarding to the present day there are arguments about the efficiency of MLS to USSF. But that should be discussed as let's take for granted the growth that has happened but look at current standing and needs. How many world cups did we make from NASL? Exactly. You're confusing the popular imagination with practical infrastructure and a professional environment for domestic players to stay in the sport and grow.
Sorry but to me MLS has grown leaps and bounds since it started and even the 13 years I have watched the Dynamo. The deal is that the dynamics used to push that along faster -- throwing money and roster space around precisely like the snobs want us to imitate Europe -- now redound less specifically to MLS and are more of a regional good. if most of your lineups are foreign then most of the international soccer benefits are exported. By definition. I am pessimistic because (1) we are in a quasi NASL mode of heavy expansion, (2) we are in a quasi NASL mode of spending on foreign players, and (3) there is money to be made doing it this way. MLS and USSF used to be more closely linked and oriented to make each other succeed. I'll use my exceptions on domestic talent. I'll let your players out of our teams for endless camps and games. etc. Now some teams would just as soon staff Hondurans or Panamanians. At least one thing to be acknowledged here is it is not the job of pro leagues/clubs to facilitate our national team. if you think friendly MLS teams have to be worked with for NT calls try abroad. That's why FIFA had to put in explicit rules. MLS remains more friendly on calls but in terms of orienting the league to benefit US Soccer, not so much. It's a business. You get rid of MLS and put in something else it will still be a business. If that business's rules allow more foreign players that business will still not help USSF. If we go full NASL we will then see how long the teams last as well. I know here in Houston we started well but over the years attendance has fizzled as the Astros became competitive and the fans figured out we are bottom tier spenders. The idea of bottom dweller US league fans watching second or third tier payroll teams will hang around like UK relegation fans, ha. I think you need explicitly American DP slots and fewer foreign players. But then you also have to accept slower growth in the business for patriotic/emotional reasons that are not really specific to your business's success. I also think most of the snobs have not considered the deeper meanings of Bosman, UK work permits, rules in Germany about rosters, financial fair play, why all the teams seem to be foreign owned in the EPL, etc. No sane league in the world runs on open rosters and free spending. It is always a balancing act and we can balance it in a way that benefits us more. We are also not up against a European right to work in doing so.
On further thought, if you wanted to break it down, you could start making a list of contributions to the sport/national team like: stadia training facilities fan interest youth training youth teams youth funding youth integrated up into pro team percentage of nationals in pros coaching of pros scouting of youth/college progression opportunities (on to Europe) salaries transfers did NT qualify did NT progress percentage of NT value of a stable league and teams and on and on. and you would be measuring that in terms of contribution here. it would be fair to criticize MLS relative to some elite leagues, BUT IMPORTANTLY IN TERMS OF THOSE LEAGUES' CONTRIBUTION TO THEIR OWN COUNTRY. if you are going to say "England is better" for Americans that has to be evaluated in terms of how rewarding are they to us specifically. if EPL is restricted entry for us by work permits, and you have to make NT and play x% games, that is never going to be a broad based solution. nor would B.1 sign 200 Americans tomorrow if MLS disappeared. I think you'd basically re-create the late 80s and early 90s, some players abroad, a minimum wage league here, college would be re-emphasized, and the question would again become making a living. the few who escaped, well compensated. the rest, basically Olympian economics. i have friends on another sport's national team. they squeak around on a stipend at a training center and ponder how long to do it before a real job versus can I make the Olympic team. it is fair to argue MLS or some theorized substitute could be better. but you then have to explain how tweaking the structures improves the contribution. if you tweak the rules to spend even more and open up foreign signings, nothing stops a team from going "Chivas USA" and most would go significantly in that direction just to try to be more competitive. in terms of NASL boostering, the contribution of NASL to domestic infrastructure and even domestic salaries is going to be near nil, and the US didn't qualify. they rented facilities that could not be passed on (like MLS at first) and spent their money on foreign talent. why would they pay domestic players who aren't even in demand? you tout getting kids excited but what else was passed on? though foreign demand preceded MLS it was not a function of NASL. the irony of snobs who want players to only go abroad making fun of the league that has helped create the infrastructure that helps this happen more often. playing abroad is no longer a thing for passport dual nationals but something a kid here with one passport can aspire to.
In honor of him breaking The MLS record, I'll go with an old hot take from 5 years ago. Wondo deserved to be on The World Cup squad
Brian Ching did not deserve to make the 2010 squad. The mistake was picking Findley instead of a Grown Ass Man.
Berhalter's system is not as complex as many seem to believe. There is one position (rb/mid hybrid) that is complicated and can cause issues in transitional defense. Offensively, the system is more structured and once the players get used to it, that structure should make things simpler. Offensively, the game is based on always having triangles (not a new concept) and finding gaps/spaces in the opposing defense and passing/breaking lines in the opposing defense when possible (again, not new). He seems to have a very specific way he wants players to rotate into space and find the gaps. Defensively, the big area of difficulty (in my mind) is that he wants the rb/mid hybrid to slide between a centrally based mid on offense to a wider defender on defense. In my opinion, this causes a great deal of difficulty...in Adam's case he has to be very disciplined...cover a lot of ground, but not too much (in the one game he played there, he ended up on the left side of the field at times...too far, even for him, to get back and help out on the right side of defense). The other part, and more important is the question of whether or not he can do it? I don't see anyone in our pool, with the possible exception of Adams, being able to play that position against a competent opponent. Another issue with the right back position, imo, is that it increases the complexity of the communication necessary to maintain defensive shape when Adams is more central on a regular basis and he needs cover. I know that this sort of thing happens all of the time but when a defense can make the adjustments vertical rather than accross the field I beleive it is more simple. Offensively, one of the main goals is to introduce movement in the opposing defense and expose gaps which can be exploited. I believe the increased defensive lateral movement built into Adam's position plays into the offense's hand. I really expect the defense to be more vulnerable to diagonal movement and overlapping than a more traditional defense.
There have been many players that were great in the MLS, or in any league you choose, that were never able to really help their national side or even like Wondo and Roy Lassiter and several others I could name actually hurt the overall performance of their national side. I do wish that performance in club soccer was really a good indicator of national team play but it is not. All club play really does is show who "might" be able to help the national side.
Yeah he was never a great NT player, but relative to his competition Jurgen was right to make him one of our 4 forwards. Terrence Boyd never scored a single NT goal, Herculez Gomez was far past it, and EJ wasn't in great form IIRC.
If it isnt, there goes the only excuse why so many Euro based players was excluded from the last camp.
A prime example of the distinction between greatness with a club and greatness with a national side is Lionel Messi.
While I don't believe it is overly complex, I do believe that it is different than what many players are used to playing and it is more structured. Anything different can take a while to adjust to. I don't claim to know why certain players were left out of camp. I think that the supposed complexity of the system is the primary reason that many are claiming, but I don't believe it is the only conceivable reason. It is possible that Berhalter didn't see the March friendlies as a very good opportunity for evalutation and instead wanted to work with what he knew. I am sure that just like you and me, Berhalter has some very strong views on a few players that he KNOWS will be among his most important players and wanted to focus on them. (I am speaking of Pulisic, McKennie, Adams and possibly Brooks). I believe Brooks is high on Berhalter's list but possibly less of a "no brainer" than the other three. He had the MLS players for a whole month and say what you want about the relative merits, they have been exposed to the system and had more time together to develop chemistry (for whatever that is worth). He could have been thinking that using it to help him evaluate a few things (player and system). He had a few comments about how he needed to evaluate/change things to put Pulisic in better postions and get him the ball more. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was his main goal with those guys. They weren't playing to make the 23. The next camp for the Gold Cup will give a much better chance at an extended/fair look at players that have had some time to adjust to the differences and to their teammates. Of course if there aren't any new players called in than that raises more questions about his pool.
who were the euro based players excluded from the last camp? save ur time if ur going to name a bunch of fringe at best players sargent and guys that were hurt.
A couple runners up in the copa America and losing the final of the world cup in overtime is a failure?
The way Messi plays for Argentina. and it has been so for a long time, is far more limited and hesitant than how he has played for his career at Barcelona. At Barcelona he is a genuinely great player. If someone were to know Messi only for his matches with the Argentinean national team, they would see a good, occasionally very good, player. They never would have seen greatness. With someone of the caliber of Messi, the contrast is exactly that between great and good, and not between good and mediocre. Your post seems to be referencing teams, and not players. Assuming that's what you intended then, yes, when you contrast the many championships Barcelona has earned with Messi, and the none Argentina have earned with him, it is a relative failure. Again, at the level of a Messi and an Argentina, the standards are not about "good" vs "mediocre".
nope fringe is fringe they are in the same group the idea that a player is magically better because he plays in a terrible league in europe is a complete flat earth myth.
Everything is relative. For arguably the greatest player in the world, surrounded by the talent the Argentine national team has it is a failure that they haven't won the world cup at least once during his career. Soccer is a team game, it is a team failure, so it shouldn't be placed 100% on his shoulders but that's what people do.
Forward in 2014 is complicated. You have the enduring question of Jozy's inability to stay healthy for big events. You have the question of should AJ, a technical striker, have gone injured. Juggling that behind Dempsey, what happens is you only have paper depth and then Wondo actually has to play in a match where we need goals. Personally I think every striker on the team should be picked for scoring goals in games that matter during the cycle. But what happened here is the Twellman of his time period was tail end of the bench, probably to chase and defend late, and then the rest of the bench options evaporate, and suddenly you're depending on him to score that sitter. IMO backs my theory pick them for NT scoring. And I don't mean Cuba, I mean Mexico. I want the sort of player who scores in a Hex round qualifier or a Gold Cup final. I am not a big Jozy fan but there is a question of how AJ made the team hurt.
Nope. Zardes in games that count has scored on Cuba, St. Vincent (she plays?), and Ecuador. That is, well, questionable if it's even better than Wondo. By comparison, Jozy has nearly 20 qualification goals, plus GC and Confed Cup, many against good teams. Wood has 5 qualifying goals, Copa America, GC, including some good teams, Even Morris has 3 GC goals and one was on Jamaica. Arriola has a qualifying goal against TnT. Green has scored on Belgium and France. I find the whole Zardes obsession laughable. He scored a goal in a soft game that was his first international goal in 3 years and he has been on the team a while doing this. I'm a track record person. Even Sargent and Weah have track records and they would at least be forward looking. This does not feel like an optimized roster, this feels like a coach with quirky ideas that one senior player is more worthwhile than another, playing some people out of position, and sandbagging some of the younger talent for a year longer on JV than makes rational sense. Ironically this may play out better with time, if he stays employed, as tripping later over the talent he is leaving off now will magically make the team look better. I grant a coach his quirks but this is not even close to the best team or the team of the future, and one basis on which I judge coaches is does it feel like we are dressing and starting in the neighborhood of what makes sense. So far, no.
Which one of Morales, Fab Johnson, and Novakovic play in a terrible league? What about A Robinson, and Duane Holmes? If they are in a terrible league then MLS is a terrible league too.